Negligently injuried North Slope equipment operator recovers $185,000

The Law Offices of Elliott T. Dennis recently recovered $185,000 for a North Slope based equipment operator injured on the job.  The defendant was returning a rented man lift to the rental company  on its truck and trailer when the accident happened.  The trailer was backed up to an unloading dock.  As the plaintiff drove the man lift off the defendant’s trailer onto the loading dock, the trailer suddenly rolled away from the dock.  The front wheels of the man lift drove off the end of the trailer.  The plaintiff, who was situated in the operators basket at the end of the man lift boom, was propelled like a human cannon ball 15 to 20 feet into the air.  He suffered a broken ankle and other injuries which laid him up for many weeks.

The defendant’s driver claimed the brakes on the truck and trailer were set and the accident was caused by the equipment sliding on the ice as opposed to rolling away from the loading docket.  The plaintiff’s employer was blamed for not clearing the snow from in front of the loading dock and the plaintiff was blamed from not wearing a harness which would have kept him in the basket.

An analysis by the plaintiffs expert of photographs of the tire tracks taken at the scene established the defendant’s “sliding tire” argument. was bogus.  The most rational basis for explaining the accident was that 1) the truck driver believed the man lift had transfered to the loading dock and he  simply pulled out to leave, or 2) the truck driver had released the truck and trail brakes in preparation for leaving and as the man lift approached the rear of the trailer the weight shift caused the trailer to roll away from the dock.  Clearly the truck driver was negligent in failing to prevent the truck from moving during the unloading process.

The internal investigation by the defendant, its insurance company and the general contractor left Plaintiff’s attorney Elliott Dennis with the belief they were covering up the facts to protect against the plaintiff making a claim for negligence.  Though the cover up made the case more of a challenge, they could not hide the truth which was in the photographs.